Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TOM3CH

Dangerous Driving Laws for Private Property

Recommended Posts

Just another way for the Government to try f**k ppl over even further with cars. Its private land. What happens on that land should be up to the owner, Not those pack of wankers.

 

Think of JDM X Park and all that... Like wtf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get how that works, usually they need to get a search warrant, is this an exception/loophole now to be exploited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this opening a huge can of worms to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the track will no longer be the place to go to rip skids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracks hold legislation that allows cars to race etc.

(Source: TC Drifting)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ yea I figured they would have some sort of license or something to allow it, was just taking the piss :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. These f**king Australian State governments really are on the next level. The next legislation to be proposed will no doubt involve rounding up a bunch of Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only to close a loophole where you can't be charged for injuring or endangering people when its on private land, you can still do skids in a paddock. The way the laws are now if somebody writes off a car and kills 3 passengers on private land they cant be charged with traffic offences. So basically they can have a fatal accident and not risk losing their licence.

 

To prove anything theyd pretty much need video of you doing high speed slides past a crowd of people, or have a crash scene to examine. This law wont be a problem

Edited by eclipse492

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need too chill so many bogans loosing there shit you can still do it just if anyone gets hurt the driver is responsible for it as if the passengers that were hurt were members of the public and not friends the reason for this law would be too many poor *milkshakes* got hurt and had to foot there own medical bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need too chill so many bogans loosing there shit you can still do it just if anyone gets hurt the driver is responsible for it as if the passengers that were hurt were members of the public and not friends the reason for this law would be too many poor *milkshakes* got hurt and had to foot there own medical bill

 

Wrong wrong wrong

 

 

It's easy way for cops to come to a property and make an assumption you were doing dangerous driving and fine you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant fine on a assumption and can't enter without a warrant and while a assumption may warrant a Warrant thats allot of work to fine someone for doing a doughnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ then how is it that you can be defected on the assumption of your vehicle being too loud or too low?

....because you can and because the police can do whatever they feel like at the time

Edited by m00nie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ then how is it that you can be defected on the assumption of your vehicle being too loud or too low?

....because you can and because the police can do whatever they feel like at the time

there not talking about defects thats a different matter I dont completely agree with the law but if someone gets hurt by someone doing stupid shit they should be liable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't say anything about defects that doesn't even make sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only to close a loophole where you can't be charged for injuring or endangering people when its on private land, you can still do skids in a paddock. The way the laws are now if somebody writes off a car and kills 3 passengers on private land they cant be charged with traffic offences. So basically they can have a fatal accident and not risk losing their licence.

 

To prove anything theyd pretty much need video of you doing high speed slides past a crowd of people, or have a crash scene to examine. This law wont be a problem

What? Loophole? You make our sound like as though people who want to do their murdering just crash on their own land until the victim dies and get away scott free. The whole reason people haven't been and should never be charged with traffic offences on their own land is because IT'S NOT TRAFFIC.

Edited by pyro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant fine on a assumption and can't enter without a warrant and while a assumption may warrant a Warrant thats allot of work to fine someone for doing a doughnut

 

^ then how is it that you can be defected on the assumption of your vehicle being too loud or too low?

....because you can and because the police can do whatever they feel like at the time

there not talking about defects thats a different matter I dont completely agree with the law but if someone gets hurt by someone doing stupid shit they should be liable

 

You've looked too far into the reply and missed the key point of it being only an "assumption" . If the police suspect or "assume" you've been breaking traffic offenses on your own property, they have the power to fine and hand out infringements where they see fit as according to their powers.

 

It's nothing but a money grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant fine on a assumption and can't enter without a warrant and while a assumption may warrant a Warrant thats allot of work to fine someone for doing a doughnut

 

^ then how is it that you can be defected on the assumption of your vehicle being too loud or too low?

....because you can and because the police can do whatever they feel like at the time

there not talking about defects thats a different matter I dont completely agree with the law but if someone gets hurt by someone doing stupid shit they should be liable

 

You've looked too far into the reply and missed the key point of it being only an "assumption" . If the police suspect or "assume" you've been breaking traffic offenses on your own property, they have the power to fine and hand out infringements where they see fit as according to their powers.

 

It's nothing but a money grab.

 

Pretty sure if someone gets hurt by someone doing something stupid on private property they are liable. What they want to do, is make it a DRIVING OFFENSE. So instead of being done with negligence causing bodily harm (or what ever its called), or manslaughter (killing someone without the intent of killing them), you can also lose your license and get a fine, and some demerits lol.

 

Money grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've looked too far into the reply and missed the key point of it being only an "assumption" . If the police suspect or "assume" you've been breaking traffic offenses on your own property, they have the power to fine and hand out infringements where they see fit as according to their powers.

It's nothing but a money grab.

 

None of the offences proposed are expiable, as in, they are all court appearances and cant be dealt with by on the spot fines like speeding. They're not going to try and send you to court with no evidence and only 'assumptions' since it will get thrown out and costs go your way.

 

 

What? Loophole? You make our sound like as though people who want to do their murdering just crash on their own land until the victim dies and get away scott free. The whole reason people haven't been and should never be charged with traffic offences on their own land is because IT'S NOT TRAFFIC.

 

'Driving offences' is a better way to word it if you're going to be pedantic. My point is if somebody does something stupid while driving on private land and causes a death or serious injury to somebody i care about, i'd want them to get hammered for it. I never said anything about murdering and the law doesnt clarify your 'own' land, it can be any private land. The offence isnt 'breaking road rules on private property', its a higher level for more serious stuff that isnt currently covered.

 

You could have a *richard cranium* mate try to show off in your driveway, lose control and run you over, completely without your involvement and currently theres no driving offences that apply to that. Other non driving specific charges are much harder to prove when cars are involved.

 

Just dont run people over or kill anyone and this wont affect anybody here.

Edited by eclipse492

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people do skids on their property in the middle of suburbia anyway? Most people dangerously drive on blocks where you don't see cops often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone taken notice of the amendments to the Road Traffic Act that the Government is proposing? They could have a HUGE impact on drifters - shed skids could see you being charged with reckless and dangerous use of a motor vehicle. Flogging around the paddock in an old ute might get you fined. Even organised drifting on a track could illegal.

 

 

What a ridiculous concept - just think how many rural kids learned to drive in the ute on the farm (or a mate's farm) - where they set up a short track and went round and round til they ran out of petrol or Mum called them in for dinner! They might have spun the wheels and slid (especially on a cold winter's day like today). Under this crazy concept a neighbour could ring up the Police or a patrol cruise past and not have enough fines accrued this week - and cha-ching - the family is hundreds of dollars worse off, the kid has a record and instead of learning car control in the back paddock they have to learn it on the streets - Go Figure - just another knee jerk reaction to win votes with the aging population.

 

And for city kids there needs to be an off road driver education/training centre - Did you know that South Australia is now the ONLY state where the Government has not funded a motorsports complex where young drivers can undertake off-street practical training - even Northern Territory has two - one at Darwin and one in Alice Springs!

 

There are THREE separate parts to this proposed amendment - first an amendment re "Causing death or harm by use of vehicle". Fundamentally, I have no problem with that. It will mean that people who cause death or injury using a vehicle on private property will be treated the same as if they did it on a road. This is predominantly OK, BUT I forsee problems as (unfortunately) most people who are seriously injured or killed on private property by a vehicle are there by own choice and partaking in the activity that injures or kills them - which is fundamentally different from most of the instances on a public road where often innocent parties are injured or killed by reckless behaviour of others.

 

The second amendment relates to people who enter private property when being pursued by police and cause injury or death to others. Can't argue against that

 

The third amendment is the one where there are HUGE issues. It relates to "reckless and dangerous driving" This is where the police could come along and fine (and even impound) a driver for doing donuts in the bottom paddock - or mono-wheeling the motorbike - or doing "shed skids" in their drift car. All these activities might be considered "reckless and dangerous" in some instances when undertaken on a public road. BUT we may now be in a situation where they become illegal when undertaken on private property. Does this include a designated motorsport park - eg Collingrove Hillclimb. Mallala Motorsport Complex or Tailem Bend MotorSport Park - or Adelaide International Raceway?

 

it IS an issue. We want to keep this sort of behaviour OFF the roads - on a designated sports track - or in someone's back paddock. This law change will mean that there is no incentive to act responsibly - if the Police are down on their monthly revenue target or the old person up the street dobs you in - you will be fined for "reckless and dangerous" driving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only to close a loophole where you can't be charged for injuring or endangering people when its on private land, you can still do skids in a paddock. The way the laws are now if somebody writes off a car and kills 3 passengers on private land they cant be charged with traffic offences. So basically they can have a fatal accident and not risk losing their licence.

 

To prove anything theyd pretty much need video of you doing high speed slides past a crowd of people, or have a crash scene to examine. This law wont be a problem

 

Read my previous post - the bit about causing death or injury is in there BUT it is the section about reckless and dangerous driving that sghould be of concern to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant fine on a assumption and can't enter without a warrant and while a assumption may warrant a Warrant thats allot of work to fine someone for doing a doughnut

 

Sorry but you are wrong - they don't need a warrant to fine you for an activity they can see happenning from the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this.

 

If someone wants the government to hold their hand and then blame the driver for something which the passenger chose to do ie get in the passenger seat, then why dont we all just get hooked up to a central command and let someone else do the decision making for us.

 

Cant anyone these days make their own decision about stuff. Does the government need to put their penny pinching ways into our property now too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×